SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[Enoch2021]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

what would be much more meaningful (and difficult to explain) would be fossil bones out of place. Do you know of any examples like this?

What do you mean by "Out of Place"?  "Out of Place" from a Dreamed up Convention/Narrative??  Wouldn't that still be a Textbook Begging The Question Fallacy??

And/Or are you "Upping Your Game" and going full bore head long into a Denying The Antecedent (Formal Logical Fallacy) ...

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, Not Q.

If they are buried together (P) then they both existed together. (Q)
They're not buried together. (Not P)
Therefore, they didn't exist together. (Therefore, not Q)

 

regards

 

 

 

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Sorry for digging out this old post, but a thought occurred to me from our more recent dialogue in the K-t boundary discussion (and I couldn't find that one). The presence of pollen where it shouldn't be is certainly a major consideration. But since there is a plausible explanation of contamination in the rock, what would be much more meaningful (and difficult to explain) would be fossil bones out of place. Do you know of any examples like this?

Hi One,

Any time you see a range extension in the literature (of which there are many every year), it is because a fossil has been found "out of place". But when it gets reported in the literature, the "place" gets changed - so that it is no longer "out of place". That means by the time anyone hears about it, it's not "out of place" anymore. The reason the pollen spores under Mt Roraima is such a good example is because they are so far "out of place" that they can't be explained away by a simple range extension (i.e the proverbial rabbit in Cambrian).

Here's an example where the supposed rise in eukaryotic cells was pushed back "more than a billion years"(http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.9123&rep=rep1&type=pdf). In this case, it still somehow came in under the range extension cut-off.

I am aware that some argue why the pollen in Mt Roraima rock must be contamination. I am not aware of a "plausible explanation" as to how pollen spores found their way so deeply into dense, impermeable, metamorphic, Pre-Cambrian rock, hundreds of feet below the surface.

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Any time you see a range extension in the literature (of which there are many every year), it is because a fossil has been found "out of place". But when it gets reported in the literature, the "place" gets changed - so that it is no longer "out of place". That means by the time anyone hears about it, it's not "out of place" anymore. The reason the pollen spores under Mt Roraima is such a good example is because they are so far "out of place" that they can't be explained away by a simple range extension (i.e the proverbial rabbit in Cambrian).

Ok, so can you give an example related to bones?

[Tristen]

45 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Ok, so can you give an example related to bones?

Do you just mean range extensions "related to bones", or do they have to be on the same magnitude of the pollen spores? I don't think there are many examples in the same league as the pollen fossils. But there are plenty bone-related fossil extensions.

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Do you just mean range extensions "related to bones", or do they have to be on the same magnitude of the pollen spores? I don't think there are many examples in the same league as the pollen fossils. But there are plenty bone-related fossil extensions.

Yes, I'm wondering if there are examples of bones that are completely "out of place" according to accepted views - the rabbit in the Cambrian that you mentioned. A distant second would be range extensions that you find peculiar.

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, I'm wondering if there are examples of bones that are completely "out of place" according to accepted views - the rabbit in the Cambrian that you mentioned. A distant second would be range extensions that you find peculiar.

Not sure what you mean by "completely" out of place, or what constitutes "peculiar" to you. Subjective standards feel like a set-up. There are many examples of bone related fossils which have been explained away by range extensions. As demonstrated in an above-mentioned reference, range extensions of over a billion years can be acceptable when justifying the evolution story. The bone-related examples I'm aware of are only in the tens to hundreds of millions of years range extensions (e.g. the rise of vertebrates, tetrapods, placental mammals, birds, and a few others). I am not aware of any bone-related, out of place fossil that has not been explained by range extension.

In reality, 1 million years is an unimaginably large amount of time. But someone operating on a billions of years time-scale could feel falsely justified in dismissing ten million of years as insignificant and trivial. Time is an absolute measure, not relative. 1 million years is still a massive amount of time, even in the context of a billion year scale.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Not sure what you mean by "completely" out of place, or what constitutes "peculiar" to you. Subjective standards feel like a set-up. There are many examples of bone related fossils which have been explained away by range extensions. As demonstrated in an above-mentioned reference, range extensions of over a billion years can be acceptable when justifying the evolution story. The bone-related examples I'm aware of are only in the tens to hundreds of millions of years range extensions (e.g. the rise of vertebrates, tetrapods, placental mammals, birds, and a few others). I am not aware of any bone-related, out of place fossil that has not been explained by range extension.

I'm just looking for anything, at this point. I'm guessing there really aren't any "rabbits in the Cambrian", or anything else that dramatic as far as actual bones. But since those are lacking, I'll be willing to look at any bone examples, including range extensions. I appreciate the earlier reference, but I'm looking for bone examples.

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm just looking for anything, at this point. I'm guessing there really aren't any "rabbits in the Cambrian", or anything else that dramatic as far as actual bones. But since those are lacking, I'll be willing to look at any bone examples, including range extensions. I appreciate the earlier reference, but I'm looking for bone examples.

This reference pushed back the range of vertebrate evolution from ~470mya to around 500mya. http://www.nature.com/articles/383810a0

This reference takes vertebrate evolution back another 40 or so million years. https://www.nature.com/articles/46965

 

[Justin Adams]

I had a clever friend. A physicist. In talking with him his brilliance rubbed of a little on me.

When we do as the Lord bids, and rub shoulders with Him - sometimes His mind rubs off on us. There is bound to be a little 'science' in the scriptures. So what? Yeshua created all the laws.

If you read early Mesopotamian history and the world view of the early writers of the scriptures, you will note that indeed, their ideas were of a flattish earth. This did not concern the Lord in the slightest. He told them to write from their perspectives and how they wrapped their world view around what they wrote was not a secret to Him. He did not care. He had a message and that was His concern.

There are some 'medical' oversights in the scriptures; all just based on world views and current understandings. That the Lord chose to use these people is because of Him and not because of them. The Lord was not going to give them all a 21st century education in the sciences and medical fields just so He could have them write His message down. No. He just took them where they were and used them as they were.

[Enoch2021]

10 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

If you read early Mesopotamian history and the world view of the early writers of the scriptures, you will note that indeed, their ideas were of a flattish earth.

1.  Post the Early Writers of Scripture and their World-Views...? (Citations Please)

2.  The Scriptures explicitly denote a: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed/Geocentric Earth.

 

Quote

This did not concern the Lord in the slightest.

What didn't concern the Lord in the slightest...?  THEN...How do you know that it didn't concern the Lord in the slightest...?

 

Quote

He told them to write from their perspectives and how they wrapped their world view around what they wrote was not a secret to Him.  He did not care.  He had a message and that was His concern.

Post the Scripture(s) where God told them to write from their perspectives...?

Are you implying that some/all of the 'early writers' of Scripture wrote their subjective opinions about Creation/Reality that were essentially UNTRUE...but God just 'let them roll' because HE wasn't all that concerned??  

What does this Scripture Mean...

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

????

 

Quote

There are some 'medical' oversights in the scriptures; all just based on world views and current understandings.

Really??  For instance...?

THEN...Show how these were to fall under "Medical"...?

 

Quote

The Lord was not going to give them all a 21st century education in the sciences and medical fields just so He could have them write His message down.

Can you please Define "Sorcery" in Scripture?  What does it mean...? Please include Lexicon: Word/Meaning ect.  Thanks

 

regards